Posted - 2012.06.24 00:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
In my non-eve MMO time, I'm playing TERA. One of the things about it is that people who control an area of the game have the ability to turn pvp on or off if they like, among other things. So with that in mind, should players be able to adjust the sec status of a system in EVE either up or down?

If the status is lowered, more areas could be friendlier to PvP. I've heard that people out in null hate the lack of a trade hub or industry... so maybe if you raise the system to at least hi sec levels, the more trade and manufacturing is possible in the system with the highest levels going to 1.0 systems. Maybe if you get a 1.0 system, you can have newer players start off there as a member of your alliance if you want.The purpose of hi sec isn't to eliminate PvP but to weed out the dumb pvpers.

Posted - 2012.06.24 00:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
With Eve Online's sov system how would one conquer other peoples space? The obvious fun game breaker I can see with your idea would be turn PVP off and never log back in.

With Eve Online's sov system how would one conquer other peoples space? The obvious fun game breaker I can see with your idea would be turn PVP off and never log back in.

I thought it was possible to capture sov. Obviously you could still declare war and take over the old fashioned way. However, there should be measures to prevent people from changing the sec of a system and then ignoring it. So if the carebears want to nerf null, they can if they can hold the systems. Likewise null can nerf low and high as well.

Probably some null systems and some hi systems would have to be off limits.The purpose of hi sec isn't to eliminate PvP but to weed out the dumb pvpers.

In my non-eve MMO time, I'm playing TERA. One of the things about it is that people who control an area of the game have the ability to turn pvp on or off if they like, among other things. So with that in mind, should players be able to adjust the sec status of a system in EVE either up or down?

If the status is lowered, more areas could be friendlier to PvP. I've heard that people out in null hate the lack of a trade hub or industry... so maybe if you raise the system to at least hi sec levels, the more trade and manufacturing is possible in the system with the highest levels going to 1.0 systems. Maybe if you get a 1.0 system, you can have newer players start off there as a member of your alliance if you want.

Maybe.

Just don't be too successful at it or make too much ISK from it.

Doesn't seem to be a popular concept at the moment raising levels of this and that for you know, profit.EVE shall be purged by fire - please Gods let them ALL burn in Jita.

Just because the horse is dead doesn't mean you can't beat it a little more. You probably shouldn't beat it, but you can anyway.

Actually, if you think about this it might help the low sec. Null users might want more null playgrounds. Carebears would want more places to run missions and explore. Giving both groups the ability to fight over those areas would make the game interesting. Low systems might not remain that way, but people would have the ability to up them or down them to make those systems more appealing.

The purpose of hi sec isn't to eliminate PvP but to weed out the dumb pvpers.

I did hear about the CVA raising the sec status of one low-sec system from .04 to a mid-sec .049. I think this was a special case that required CCP intervention.

It makes sense that the security status of a system can be raised or lowered based on player activity in that system. A 0.5 mid-sec system could be lowered until it was a low-sec system if it was a 'choke hold' system where ganks frequently occurred, such as Niarja for example. I think this would have to be based on 'number of ships and pods destroyed' on an hourly basis, stretched out over a period of time such as months.

Yes, this would probably mean that Jita's security would eventually start going down, but isn't that what defines high sec from low-sec?

I've suggested this sort of thing before, and of course many people object to it. They would not want the trade hub of Jita to be fractured over different systems such as Sobaseki, etc. They also don't like the idea of a low-sec buffer zone between the four empires, which also -might- happen. Some say this has been tried before and al

Just as pirates could make the security of a system go down, non-pirates such as the Militia could make the security of a system go up. At the moment of course Pirates can also be part of the Militia, so there would have to be a way to fix this.

What I like about this is that it makes EvE a little more 'sandbox'. Players can now take a more active role in directly patrolling and enforcing the security of their own space, instead of leaving it to Concord. There is more reason to invest in a system where your actions have a direct effect on the EvE universe.

Posted - 2012.06.24 03:51:00 -
[10] - Quote
I already proposed dynamic systems some time ago - including ability for players to discover new solar systems, build new gates, etc. etc. But TERA is latest generation MMO with freshly written compact code, EVE is 9 years old dinosaur with massive code base there slight changes may destroy parts of economy and gameplay as we've seen in rigged faction warfare where nobody want to play for Amarr - so I doubt we'll see anything new soon. At least not until Dust will be released, debugged and stabilized in a couple of years. CCP won't put itself in danger by risking to face new monoclegeddon and player exodus over radical changes in EVE mechanics while it has +1 game to develop and no other sources of income.

And on a more serious note, how does one exactly change sov in a highsec system?

Made friends with CONCORD?"Eve isnGÇÖt some welcoming online utopia: itGÇÖs cut-throat, cruel, atavistic despite the futuristic setting. Give people a sandbox, and theyGÇÖll throw the sand in a rivalGÇÖs eyes before kicking them in the shins and destroying their sandcastle." -Keza MacDonald, IGN.

Posted - 2012.06.24 10:13:00 -
[14] - Quote
In a way this would be pretty awesome. We could just make everything nullsec. On the other hand all the highsec bears would quit the game & I wouldn't have anyone to educate anymore.

Posted - 2012.06.24 11:10:00 -
[15] - Quote
Are you suggesting that high sec could change also, as that would have to be the case of you could change the sec status of null sec to even things out, in which case the goons, test, etc could come into every system and destroy the security status of it and turn the whole map into null sec, and i guarantee thats exactly what would happen .

Nullsec and lowsec alliances would lower the sec status of hi sec systems, converting all of empire into low/nullsec. Carebears would complain but never be organized enough to put up an actual fight. There would be massive amounts of ganking and tears, and everyone would blame the goons. Noob systems would be camped once the easy PvP victi- er targets were forced to ragequit, and any noob jumping out of a noob system would be immediately ganked.

Posted - 2012.06.24 11:32:00 -
[17] - Quote
My favorite is to make the outcome of FW affect sec status in empire. If that would have been implemented there would hardly be any highsec right now in Amarr space and maybe we could get more players to help turn the tide in the war.

That's the part that just won't happen. You can't force the carebears to take up arms, you can't bribe them, you can't coerce them. They will either do it on their own eventually, or they will move elsewhere or ragequit.

That's the part that just won't happen. You can't force the carebears to take up arms, you can't bribe them, you can't coerce them. They will either do it on their own eventually, or they will move elsewhere or ragequit.

You may be right. But I don't see that as a problem. With such mechanic the war will have real consequences for New Eden. Amarr highsec might become a pirate infested waste land and Minmatar might take over all the carebearing. But as long as there are realistic mechanics in the game to change all that within FW I think it just adds to the experience of EVE. Ofc, first they have to fix FW again.

Posted - 2012.06.24 12:04:00 -
[20] - Quote
Apart from 'safety', higher-security systems are worse in every way than lower-security systems. If lowsec-dwellers could make all of lowsec be 0.1 rather than have these wholly inferior 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 systems, then they would. In nullsec, likewise: the more negative the better. In highsec, there's maybe some tension between missioners and miners (for whom 0.5 is better in every way than higher-security systems) and bots (for whom 1.0 is wholly preferable to 0.5-0.9).

So the very first thing your proposal would do is homogenize the galaxy. The struggles others have alluded to would be a poor replacement, and your vision of nullsec empires creating little pockets of highsec just wouldn't happen: they'd be destroying the value of their own space.

Posted - 2012.06.24 14:51:00 -
[22] - Quote
What this should be part of is DYNAMIC sec status. CCP will never have time to do that, and the null sec alliances would absolutely riot.

But consider a game more like real life.Frontier systems are full of tremendous wealth, and full of terrifying dangers, both human and NPC.

But to fully exploit the wealth, (great mins, moon goo, and very high bounty rats), you must tame this land.The more infrastructure and pilot activity, there is a an associated raising of sec status, and of course a lowering of wealth of a system. Rocks get smaller and less valuable, rats get weaker, less frequent, and less bounty, plexes less frequent.

Conversely, systems that were once thriving hubs of lawfulness and player activity would slowly be bled of their wealth. They wold be abandoned, and as they are, the lawlessness and associated wealth of a system would slowly increase. A 1.0 system, if not actively maintained, would slide to null sec status, with all the pitfalls and wealth.

Prime null sec systems, with outposts and continuous ratting and mining would slowly become high sec.High sec systems that no one does anything in (many high and low sec systems have no stations, and very little activity) would slowly degrade into lawless areas of wealth.

The result would be an everchanging canvas, where powerblocs would have to decide if, and where, they have to move to to follow the wealth in the game.

High sec groups would be forced to migrate to better pastures as a 0.5 system slowly turns to a 1.0 system, and the rocks, plexes and rats become almost valueless.Power blocs would have to play a delicate game of balancing activity in a system with farming its resources to keep the sec status of rising, unless of course they wanted that.

In this world, the monolithic massive alliances would lose their grip. Smaller, more agile groups, capable of moving quickly would succeed.

Hence while it will never happen. The existing power blocs will never allow anything to alter the status quo.

Yes, this would probably mean that Jita's security would eventually start going down, but isn't that what defines high sec from low-sec?

I've suggested this sort of thing before, and of course many people object to it. They would not want the trade hub of Jita to be fractured over different systems such as Sobaseki, etc. They also don't like the idea of a low-sec buffer zone between the four empires, which also -might- happen. Some say this has been tried before and all

Well, Jita wasn't exactly safe a month ago even with it being hi sec.

Thor wrote:

And on a more serious note, how does one exactly change sov in a highsec system?

Good question. In a null system where you can't claim sov, low, and high there would have to be other options. Maybe running missions for concord to raise the level of a system or running a mission for one of the pirate corps to lower it. Maybe you could plant devices at the system gates and they would:

1. Be shootable by anyone without concord intervening, but your corp/alliance could shoot the aggressor back.2. Be used to raise or lower the level of a system.

Another option would be to bribe concord... 1 billion ISK per level gets you one week of sec status change.

Ptraci wrote:

It's fairly predictable what would happen:

Nullsec and lowsec alliances would lower the sec status of hi sec systems, converting all of empire into low/nullsec. Carebears would complain but never be organized enough to put up an actual fight. There would be massive amounts of ganking and tears, and everyone would blame the goons. Noob systems would be camped once the easy PvP victi- er targets were forced to ragequit, and any noob jumping out of a noob system would be immediately ganked.

Is this what you want for EVE?

Well, a lot of people think that carebears are the cancer that is killing eve. This would give them a way to purge the carebears or make them deal with PvP. In Tera on the server I play on, all the guilds who are in charge of an area have the PvP rules enabled. People are still playing the game.

The purpose of hi sec isn't to eliminate PvP but to weed out the dumb pvpers.

Posted - 2012.06.24 21:08:00 -
[25] - Quote
No.CCP Zulu.....Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience.

COPYRIGHT NOTICEEVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.